The Twenty-Second session of the General Conference of UNESCO (the
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization).
in Paris ended on November 26. Meanwhile, a
"fundamental-reappraisal" of the U.S. relationship with UNESCO now
being cond u cted by the U.S. Govern- ment is in its final stages.
The results are to be released before the end of this year. The
next few weeks, therefore., are crucial in deter- mining America's
policy toward what is, beyond question, the most viru- lently
anti-Ame r ican--and most inefficient and wasteful--member of the
United Nations system. A recent Heritage Backgrounder argued that
the U.S. should serve notice that it will quit UNESCO at the end of
1984 unless sweeping changes are forthcoming. It should take this c
ourse for two reasons: (1) Because it is morally and politically
wrong for America to continue to 'lend authority and
legitimacy--arid to provide some $70 million each year (25 percent
of UNESCO's budget)--to an organization dedi- cated to attacking
its f u ndamental American@values and interests. (2.) Because the
existing structure and ethics of UNESCO make it impos- sible for
the United States and other liber4l democracies to change things
from within, by debate and negotiation. Basic changes in UNESCO.wil
l only be seriously consi'dered when and if those-who hold..power
in the,organization-the Director General and the Third World
majority--are convinced that the cost of not implementing them will
be the departure of the United States. The General Conference which
has just finished has changed nothing. it is true that the
Conference was unusually low@-keyed and muted, largely devoid of
the bitter confrontations, the outrageous manipulations of
procedures and the extreme polemics which have been the stock-in-t
r ade of recent UNESCO conferences. But this occurred-only after
some straight talking by Gregory Newell, the Assistant Secretary of
State for Interna- tional Organizations,'who made it clear that
the:U.S. meant business. Those in control at U14ESCO then de c ided
it Was prudent tobe restrained-- for the time being. But a tap
easily turned off can just as easily be .turned back on; and the
same hands are on that tap. It is true that the U.S. delegation
worked hard at the General Conference to remove some of th e most
obnoxious features of UNESCO's programs for the next two years and
that it had 6ome significant suc- cesges. But, as noteworthy as
these succe'sses are, they did not change

2

t he fundamental problems. The original UNESCO programs; with all
their i deological biases and wastefulhdis's,'remain essentially
intact. So does the power structure within UNESCO, which has
created the current crisis. It would be a major error, therefore,
to conclude that'the rela-@ tively subdued nature of'the
Twenty-Second G eneral Conference repre- sented any sort of a
turning point or that it provides any basis for optimism about the
future. In short, the Conference left the basic situation
completely unchanged. Some argue that Although UNESCO is admittedly
a pernicious org a ni- zation, the U.S. must stay in so that it can
"manage" things and prevent them from becoming even worse. This
is.a bad argument on two accounts. First, neither the U.S. nor
other Western countries have shown any capacity to so manage the
organization, w hose behavior has become pro- gressively more
anti-Western-and irr onsible in recent years. Second, the presence
of the U.S.' even more Zran its money, serves to give flavor and
point to the anti-American ideological game now being played, in
UNESCO. It h a s to be there for its discomfiture to be evident and
visible. If it were to leave, that game would quickly lose most of
its appeal and purpose. In Paris, during the Conference, Assistant
Secretary of State Newell warned that the U.S. reappraisal will
reco m mend one of only two options: a dramatically increased U.S.
commitment to UNESCO'to try to offset the current drift, or
withdrawal. The U.S. would not stay "in the middle." This was-a
healthy clarification; it authoritatively established the
seriousness o f the reappraisal and shattered the illu,-- sion that
the U.S. was merely bluffing. Yet an increased commitment, however
dramatic, cannot in itself be effective. America's problem with
UNESCO does not stem from an inade- quate performande 'in the
existing g ame, but from the nature of-the game itself. It is a
political problem and will only yield to-A political 6olution. The
only effective political leverage available to the U.S. is a
commitment to withdraw and withhold the very-substantial
contribution it n o w makes to UNESCO"s budget, unless the
organization puts.its house in order and dramatically changes its
ways. n The U.S. reappraisal should not.shrink from recognizing and
acting upon this. If it. does so, Congress should take appropriate
action. It shou l d do so not as the beginning of a general
campaign aga .inst the Unitid Nations system, but as specific
action against an organization whichi even by U.N. standards,'is a
deviant-and delinquent member of that system. If, after the high
profile which has b een given the reappraisal, such action is not
taken, America's credibility as a country which must be taken
seriously in the context of.UNESCO will be virtually destroyed.
Owen Harries John M. Olin Fellow

For further information: Owen Harries--, '"rhe U.S. and UNESCO
at the Crossroads," Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 298,
October 19', 1983.